https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55789 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to patent, obvious and self-evident mistakes in the record and cannot be used to review or reopen a concluded appellate decision. The Tribunal held that the assessee's request for recall, based on alleged non-consideration of the survey report under section 133A and a departmental representatives' report, amounted in substance to a reappreciation of merits. As the material had already been considered and no binding report or apparent factual error was shown, the applications did not disclose any mistake apparent from the record and were rightly rejected. en-us Fri, 07 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:43:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55789 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to patent, obvious and self-evident mistakes in the record and cannot be used to review or reopen a concluded appellate decision. The Tribunal held that the assessee's request for recall, based on alleged non-consideration of the survey report under section 133A and a departmental representatives' report, amounted in substance to a reappreciation of merits. As the material had already been considered and no binding report or apparent factual error was shown, the applications did not disclose any mistake apparent from the record and were rightly rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 07 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55789